The plan contains multitudes (almost every idea proposed in the past five years is in there somewhere—some of which are good). But most of the good ideas are window dressing for what is, first and foremost, a call for more resources. Clinton would spend $350 billion over ten years on a laundry list of priorities designed to bring the price of college down. The plan includes: Grants to states that pledge to invest more of their own money in public colleges and universities; grants to institutions (public and private) that enroll low-income students; lower interest rates for student loan borrowers; interest subsidies for existing borrowers that “refinance” their loans; more spending on childcare for student-parents; and more.

Yes, some of the $350 billion would have strings attached, but most of those strings are themselves about spending more money. In order to access “incentive grants,” states would have to guarantee “no-loan” tuition at four-year public college (and free tuition at two-year colleges) by “[halting] disinvestment in higher education” and “[ramping] up that investment over time.” States, in turn, would only distribute federal grant funds to colleges that demonstrate they can meet the debt-free tuition requirement and contain costs.

Set aside the fact that simply pumping more money into the system won’t solve quality problems and may well inflate college spending further, no matter how tight the new rules. What’s especially odd, given Clinton’s effort to cast herself as a Progressive, is where much of that new spending will go: to upper-income students who would go to college anyway.

To be sure, families up and down the income distribution are anxious about the cost of college. But we already spend plenty of money on policies that subsidize upper-income students and families—federal tax credits, loan forgiveness for graduate students, and heavily subsidized state flagship colleges come to mind. These investments haven’t made college any cheaper, they likely relax the incentive for students and colleges to be cost conscious, and they spend taxpayer dollars on those who would still attend without a handout from the government.

Clinton’s plan would double down on such policies in three key areas. First, the plan calls for a significant investment in lowering interest rates for new and outstanding federal loans. Her plan would both allow borrowers to “refinance” at current rates and slash interest rates on new loans. Campaign documents show they expect about one-third of the $350 billion price tag would go toward these interest subsidies.

But across-the-board interest subsidies are poorly targeted—they go to all borrowers, regardless of their income and ability to repay. Take loan refinancing proposals, like the one introduced by Senator Elizabeth Warren, as an example. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that about 95 percent of outstanding federal loans would be eligible to refinance at lower rates at a cost of nearly $60 billion. The problem here is that a lower interest rate disproportionately benefits those with the highest debts—often graduate students with masters and professional degrees. These grads are actually the best equipped to pay back their loans, and they are already free to refinance federal loans in the private market. Meanwhile, those who are most likely to default—drop-outs who usually have more modest balances—would receive only limited benefits.

Slashing interest rates on new loans suffers from the same problem. Any student can take out a federal loan, regardless of their income, and data suggest that about 50-60 percent of college graduates from high and upper-middle income families borrow. Low interest rates on new loans would make loans more affordable, but by the same amount for students across the income distribution and at a significant cost to the government.

Second, the Clinton plan calls for extending the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC). The AOTC was created in 2009 and allows families with qualified expenses to deduct up to $2,500 from their taxes ($1,000 is refundable). In 2012, the credit was extended through 2017, and President Obama has proposed to make it permanent and expand it even further.

Here again, though, the problem is that tax credits disproportionately benefit upper-income families. These families are the most likely to spend enough on college expenses and pay enough in taxes to qualify for the full credits. An analysis by the Tax Policy Center found that a quarter of the money spent on the AOTC and half of the spending on the student loan interest deduction went to families earning between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. Students from these families are very likely to enroll whether there’s a tax credit or not. As conservative policy wonk Reihan Salam has written, “tuition tax credits increase demand for all students, including those that are already willing and able to spend large sums on higher education.”